9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection with the said incident six accused were arrested on 22.12.2012, one of whom, namely, the first Respondent in the present special leave petition was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence of the crime. The victim of the offence died on 29.1.2013. While the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter for short the Board ) was in seisin of the matter against the first Respondent, the Petitioners in the special leave petition approached the Board seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Board and an interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Act') so as to enable the prosecution of the first Respondent in a regular criminal court. According to the Petitioners while the Board did not pass any written orders in the matter it had expressed its inability to decide the question of law brought before it and directed the Petitioners to approach a higher Court. Accordingly, on 18.1.2013 the Petitioners filed a public interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi with the following prayers. (i) Laying down an authoritative interpretation of Sections 2(l) and 2(k) of the Act that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts maintainability. The gravamen of the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the Respondents is that the administration of criminal justice in India does not envisage any role for a third party/stranger and it is the State which represents the victim of a crime to vindicate the rights that may have been violated and the larger social interest in enforcing and maintaining the criminal law system. In this regard learned Counsels have placed reliance on several decisions of this Court, which will be noticed hereinafter, wherein the aforesaid legal principle has been stated and reiterated. 6. To counter the arguments advanced on the plea of maintainability raised by the Respondents, the first Petitioner - Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who had appeared in person and were authorized to do so on their behalf by the other Petitioners, has submitted that the prayers made before the High Court which would now require consideration of this Court make it clear that the Petitioners neither seek impleadment in the proceeding pending before the Board against the first Respondent nor the payers made have any specific bearing to the criminal acts committed by the first Respondent. According t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the lookout of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur. 8. Coming to the second stage of the system of administration of criminal justice in India, this Court in Thakur Ram and Ors. v. The State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911, while examining the right of a third party to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under the Code of 1898, had observed as under: The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e incident in question. But would the above, by itself, render the action initiated by the Petitioners non-maintainable on the ground that they have no locus to raise the questions that have arisen being total strangers to the alleged crime, as contended by the Respondents on the strength of the principles noticed above? 12. The Petitioners do not seek impleadment in the inquiry against the first Respondent presently pending before the Board or in the trial to which he may be relegated in the event the questions of law are answered in favour of the Petitioners and that too within the requisite time span. Such a prayer, i.e., for impleadment was raised and decided against the Petitioners by the Board. The said prayer had not been pursued before the High Court. Neither the same has been raised before us. All that the Petitioners seek is an authoritative pronouncement of the true purport and effect of the different provisions of the JJ Act so as to take a juvenile out of the purview of the said Act in case he had committed an offence, which, according to the Petitioners, on a true interpretation of Section 2(p) of the Act, is required to be identified and distinguished to justify a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
